Now, I don't know a ton about unions in general, but as far as I know (rather, knew), most unions have something to do with labor, workers, industry and that sort of thing. Like the teacher's union, steel worker's union, and so forth. Thinking about unions immediately puts into me into a late 19th century- early 20th century frame of mind; you know, restricting child labor, protecting factory workers, etc.
However, in working on a side project, I've just come across and entirely different kind of union. Apparently mid-19th century spawned art unions, like the American Art Union (whose monthly members publication I've been reading). The purpose of this type of unions, as far as I can tell, is to give up-and-coming artists a chance and to provide some place for them to display their work. For the low, low cost of $5 a year (in 1849, since that;'s the year I've gotten up to in their publication...maybe dues went up later), you could join the American Art Union. You don't have to be American or an artist necessarily, just a person with 5 dollars. The Union takes all of these dues and uses them to publish a journal, to but or borrow new paintings for their New York gallery (which was free to the public!), and to commission a painting. For your 5 dollars, you get the monthly bulletin (which is some quality reading, let me tell you), a mini copy of the year's painting, and a raffle entry to win the painting (one for every 5 dollars you pay in). In flush years, members might even get a bronze medal for their trouble.
It's a cool idea, and it certainly worked for the American Art Union. In 1839, they had 814 members. By 1848, they were up to 16,475 members. That year, they raked in $85,134.28. Not bad at all. Still, it seems like a weird kind of union. I suppose an interest in art is the underlying common thread between all of the members, but it just doesn't feel right to me. There is only a small board of central committee members/overseers- no general nation-wide organizational structure. The biggest benefit of membership seems to be a raffle ticket- the Union doesn't fight for artists rights or anything like that (that being said, I would totally pay 5 dollars to enter in a raffle for a painting). It doesn't seem serious enough to me. All teachers have to join the teacher's union (okay, all public school teachers, but still that's the vast majority), but these art unions seem to be a lackadaisical, just-for-fun sort of thing. Certainly, not all American artists joined the American Art Union; not all gallery owners, art professionals, appreciators, etc. were members. So maybe calling themselves a union was a bit of wishful thinking- maybe they were more of a "club"?
Later Addition: For people who like pictures, I dug this up from the May 1849 Bulletin of the American Art-Union:
However, in working on a side project, I've just come across and entirely different kind of union. Apparently mid-19th century spawned art unions, like the American Art Union (whose monthly members publication I've been reading). The purpose of this type of unions, as far as I can tell, is to give up-and-coming artists a chance and to provide some place for them to display their work. For the low, low cost of $5 a year (in 1849, since that;'s the year I've gotten up to in their publication...maybe dues went up later), you could join the American Art Union. You don't have to be American or an artist necessarily, just a person with 5 dollars. The Union takes all of these dues and uses them to publish a journal, to but or borrow new paintings for their New York gallery (which was free to the public!), and to commission a painting. For your 5 dollars, you get the monthly bulletin (which is some quality reading, let me tell you), a mini copy of the year's painting, and a raffle entry to win the painting (one for every 5 dollars you pay in). In flush years, members might even get a bronze medal for their trouble.
It's a cool idea, and it certainly worked for the American Art Union. In 1839, they had 814 members. By 1848, they were up to 16,475 members. That year, they raked in $85,134.28. Not bad at all. Still, it seems like a weird kind of union. I suppose an interest in art is the underlying common thread between all of the members, but it just doesn't feel right to me. There is only a small board of central committee members/overseers- no general nation-wide organizational structure. The biggest benefit of membership seems to be a raffle ticket- the Union doesn't fight for artists rights or anything like that (that being said, I would totally pay 5 dollars to enter in a raffle for a painting). It doesn't seem serious enough to me. All teachers have to join the teacher's union (okay, all public school teachers, but still that's the vast majority), but these art unions seem to be a lackadaisical, just-for-fun sort of thing. Certainly, not all American artists joined the American Art Union; not all gallery owners, art professionals, appreciators, etc. were members. So maybe calling themselves a union was a bit of wishful thinking- maybe they were more of a "club"?
Later Addition: For people who like pictures, I dug this up from the May 1849 Bulletin of the American Art-Union:
